Strain-Based Fatigue Models
The Fatigue Module has three strain-based Critical Plane Methods: Smith-Watson-Topper (SWT) Model, Wang-Brown Model, and Fatemi-Socie Model. These types of models are frequently used for low-cycle fatigue modeling.
In a low-cycle fatigue analysis, the plastic strains in each cycle are significant on a macroscopic scale. These strains must then be computed, which many times is the main challenge of the analysis. There are two fundamental methods to handle this:
Both methods are available for all models via the Solution type parameter in the Fatigue Model Selection section for Strain-Based. The option for plasticity approximation is only available with Smith-Watson-Topper (SWT) Model, Wang-Brown Model, and Fatemi-Socie Model.
Elastoplastic Analysis
The most straightforward method is to perform a full elastoplastic analysis and feed the results to the fatigue evaluation. However, this approach can be computationally expensive since the relevant strain input come from a stabilized cycle. With plasticity, due to shake-down or ratcheting, for example, it might be so that several cycles must be computed before such a cycle is obtained.
Elastic Analysis
It is also possible to only use an elastic analysis and then approximate the plastic strains. This technique is computationally efficient. The underlying assumption is that the plastic strains are localized so that the small plastic region can be considered to be locally displacement controlled by its elastic surroundings. This is the case at a notch.
Equations describing strain-based models use number of reversals, 2Nf, while the result displays the number of cycles to failure, Nf.
Smith-Watson-Topper (SWT) Model
Smith-Watson-Topper (SWT) is a type of critical plane model where the plane normal to the maximum normal strain range, Δεn, is considered. The model is described by
The left-hand side is commonly called the SWT parameter and contains the maximum normal stress during the cycle on the critical plane, σn,max. The right-hand side contains the cycles to failure, Nf, and material parameters , E, b, , and c. At low stresses and strains the fatigue life is limited by a Cycle Cutoff.
Wang-Brown Model
The Wang-Brown model is based on finding the plane with maximum shear strain range, Δγ. It contains one extra material parameter, S, which represents the sensitivity to the normal strain range, Δεn, on the critical plane. In reality, S is not a constant but has some dependence on the load level. It is usually of the order 1.0–2.4 for LCF, but it can be as low as 0.3 close to the fatigue limit. The model is described with
where the right-hand side contains the cycles to failure, Nf, and material parameters , E, b, , and c.
If the model is used in the HCF regime, it might be necessary to compensate for mean stress effects. This can be done using Morrow’s mean stress correction. The Basquin term of the equation is then modified so that
Here,  σn,mean is the mean normal stress on the maximum shear plane. It is computed as the average of the maximum and minimum normal stress on the critical plane during the load cycle. At low strains the fatigue life is limited by a Cycle Cutoff.
Fatemi-Socie Model
The Fatemi-Socie model builds on the same ideas as the Wang-Brown model and also considers the plane with the largest shear strain range Δγ. Then, rather than the normal strain, it uses the maximum normal stress during the cycle on the critical plane, σn,max, to model the influence of an opening of the microcrack. In its fundamental form the model is formulated using the fatigue properties for pure shear, something that could be obtained from a torsion test. The Fatemi-Socie relation can be written as
where the right-hand side contains the load cycles to failure, Nf, and material parameters , G, b, , and c. The normal stress sensitivity constant, k, can be set to 1 as an initial approximation. In reality, k is not a constant but has some dependence on the load level. σys0 is the initial yield stress of the material. At low stresses and strains the fatigue life is limited by a Cycle Cutoff.
Often the true material constants for shear are not available. In that case it is possible to approximate them from results obtained using tensile tests. This option is available and the conversion is done using the following relations:
Elastic Notch Approximation
Neuber’s rule states that for a notch the product of elastically computed stress and strain is equal to the product of the actual, inelastic, stress and strain. Strictly speaking, it is defined only in terms of a uniaxial stress state. In practice, the stress states are often multiaxial, so here Neuber’s rule is expressed with equivalent stresses, σeq, and strains, εeq.
(3-1)
In this equation the left-hand side has an “e” denoting the results of an elastic analysis, while the right-hand side contains the actual values.
In strain-based fatigue analysis it is common to assume a Ramberg-Osgood material law when modeling the cyclic plastic behavior
(3-2)
where E is the modulus of elasticity. The parameters K' and n' are material constants of the cyclic response and not the monotonic response obtained from a standard tensile test.
Initially, Equation 3-1 and Equation 3-2 are solved together to obtain the elastoplastic equivalent (in a von Mises sense) stresses and strains. Hoffmann and Seeger (Ref. 1) have developed an algorithm for approximate computation of the stress and strain amplitudes in a multiaxial case. By following the Hencky’s rule and utilizing the generalized notation of the Hooke’s law they obtained following expression for the total elastoplastic strains
where is the Poisson’s ratio, is the effective Poisson’s ratio and σ1 and σ2 are the principal stresses. The third principal stress is zero. The expression for the equivalent stress is given by
This provides a set of five unknowns and four equations. As the last equation Hoffmann and Seeger proposed that ratio between the two principal strain in the elastoplastic notch region equals the ratio of corresponding principal strains in the elastic case
Their work shows that the ratio is almost constant in a notch and justifies the use of this assumption. From the equations above the solution to the first principal stress and strain is given by
Numerically, directions of the principal notch stresses are evaluated in following way:
1
The direction of σ1 is taken as the direction of the elastic principal stress that is largest in magnitude.
2
The direction of σ3 is taken as the direction of the elastic principal stress that is smallest in magnitude.
3
The direction of σ2 is taken as the direction of the remaining principal elastic stress.